Invisible cyclists.

Grahamer666

Not sure if this i've put this in the correct forum but feel free to move.

Have recently noticed the amount of cyclists on our capitals roads that are wearing dark clothes and no lights and or high viz jackets or helmets when it's dark out is on the increase. This morning on my commute i counted ten cyclists like the above. Why do these people insist on putting themselves and others at danger and why do the Garda not do something about it.

_Kaiser_

Completely agree with you.. same thing applies to pedestrians on dark roads or walking out in front of traffic in dark/bad weather.

Unfortunately though you'll be told that it's your responsibility as a motorist to watch out for these lemmings, but while that's true - I would be of the firm belief that the pedestrian/cyclist also has a responsibility for their own safety and not put themselves at unnecessary risk where it could be avoided through a few simple measures.

I'm still think that letting hordes of untrained, inexperienced cyclists out among busy rush hour traffic as has been happening in recent times is just asking for trouble. That's not to say that there aren't idiotic drivers as well (there are, and a lot of them!) but again, the cyclist/pedestrian is the one most at risk yet they continue on with this notion of invulnerability and heedless of safety in a lot of cases.

Effects

Grahamer666 wrote: »

why do the Garda not do something about it.

Busy with other stuff I suppose.
I was stopped on my bike at pedestrian lights by Connolly Station last week. Garda van stopped too. A cyclist without lights, in the dark, went through the lights, causing a pedestrian to take a step back.
I gestured to the Garda but just got a filthy look back.

I take my own approach to cyclists without lights and carry a spare pair with me, which I give to someone who doesn't have lights.

ted1

Leaving asides the irony that if you didn’t see them you wouldn’t be complaining.

I think a few people are being caught out at the moment with darker mornings and evenings, hopefully by Monday many Will have dug out their lights.

Personally I invested in a dynamo hub and high powered lights that meet the strict German requirements. So I fit the wheel in October and take it off in March. And don’t have to worry about batteries etc ever.

Pinch Flat

Grahamer666 wrote: »

Not sure if this i've put this in the correct forum but feel free to move.

Have recently noticed the amount of cyclists on our capitals roads that are wearing dark clothes and no lights and or high viz jackets or helmets when it's dark out is on the increase. This morning on my commute i counted ten cyclists like the above. Why do these people insist on putting themselves and others at danger and why do the Garda not do something about it.

Fair play for counting those invisible cyclists! :pac:

All joking aside, I ensure I've a 200 lumen strobe back and front. You'd be surprised though how many motorists cannot see them...

magicbastarder

decent lights are a must, and are not policed; they're the only thing you mentioned which are legally required.

frozenfrozen

when there are some cars going on at night without lights on what hope is there that cyclists will have lights

uck51js9zml2yt

Just as well there are never any motorists who drive without lights on.

tabbey

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You'd be surprised though how many motorists cannot see them...

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Henry94

Keagan Dirty Tick wrote: »

Just as well there are never any motorists who drive without lights on.

Indeed there are many. As a cyclist I'm tired of half-wit cyclists who give us all a bad name and thick drivers who don't think we should be on the road at all. Bikes mean fewer cars and less congestion. Smart motorists welcome that because if we continue as we are going traffic will grind to a halt.

Grahamer666

Usually when a see a motorist without lights a quick flash will make them notice they forgot to switch on their lights. Most wouldn't drive with them off on purpose. And yes, i'm saying that the majority of the 'near' invisible cyclist are well aware they have no lights or high viz jackets or arm bands or whatever.

I'm not having a go at cyclists in general in case someone is going to bring that up.

ED E

Another cyclist complained that my rear was too bright yesterday, think Im safe enough.

Dravokivich

These people are simply unaware of the risk the pose to themselves and other road users.

irelandrover

Grahamer666 wrote: »

Usually when a see a motorist without lights a quick flash will make them notice they forgot to switch on their lights. Most wouldn't drive with them off on purpose. And yes, i'm saying that the majority of the 'near' invisible cyclist are well aware they have no lights or high viz jackets or arm bands or whatever.

I'm not having a go at cyclists in general in case someone is going to bring that up.

To be fair there are loads of drivers that knowingly drive around with blown bulbs.

As a cyclist i hate to see other cyclists without lights. Its such as easy way to increase your own safety.

07Lapierre

Some people are just stupid. Just be thankful their riding bikes and not driving a HGV or a Bus!

Pinch Flat

Daylight Running Lights. The amount of clowns that drive around with them on in darkness is pretty scary. "Sure I can see where I 'm going, whats the problem". They need an idiot override switch, which is apparently not a standard feature.

07Lapierre

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Daylight Running Lights. The amount of clowns that drive around with them on in darkness is pretty scary. "Sure I can see where I 'm going, whats the problem". They need an idiot override switch, which is apparently not a standard feature.

Maybe these same people cycle bikes at night?

Grahamer666

irelandrover wrote: »

To be fair there are loads of drivers that knowingly drive around with blown bulbs.

As a cyclist i hate to see other cyclists without lights. Its such as easy way to increase your own safety.

That light bulb thing does my head in too. I was more talking about someone who just wouldn't turn them on but i agree with you. People driving round with defective light bulbs should be pulled over too.

07Lapierre

Grahamer666 wrote: »

That light bulb thing does my head in too. I was more talking about someone who just wouldn't turn them on but i agree with you. People driving round with defective light bulbs should be pulled over too.

If headlamps are dirty, the light from them can be pretty poor. Some people cant tell the difference between side lights/DRL's (especially in urban areas with Street lighting) and their headlamps because they are used to driving around with crap light anyway! Stupid people do stupid things.

RasTa

You should be asking yourself why you are driving in the city centre during rush hour traffic in the first place

Henry94

Grahamer666 wrote: »

Usually when a see a motorist without lights a quick flash will make them notice they forgot to switch on their lights. Most wouldn't drive with them off on purpose. And yes, i'm saying that the majority of the 'near' invisible cyclist are well aware they have no lights or high viz jackets or arm bands or whatever.

I'm not having a go at cyclists in general in case someone is going to bring that up.

If it's completely dark perhaps but many drivers seem to think that if they can see they don't need their lights. They forget about being seen in bad conditions or fading light. We were supposed to have legislation a few yeas back to force manufacturers to have lights on all the time once the engine was on. I assume "industry lobbying" put paid to that.

07Lapierre

Henry94 wrote: »

If it's completely dark perhaps but many drivers seem to think that if they can see they don't need their lights. They forget about being seen in bad conditions or fading light. We were supposed to have legislation a few yeas back to force manufacturers to have lights on all the time once the engine was on. I assume "industry lobbying" put paid to that.

Volvo cars already have this feature.

Alf Veedersane

07Lapierre wrote: »

Stupid people do stupid things.

Exactly.

This isn't a cyclist thing no more than car drivers with dirty/defective lights is a 'driver thing'.

There are just people that are either unaware they're not as visible as they should be or are just too stupid too think they might not be all that visible.

I've found that if you're a driver that cycles a lot, you become aware of these things....like how little difference a high-vis on its own makes and that lights are a must.

spyderski

Henry94 wrote: »

We were supposed to have legislation a few yeas back to force manufacturers to have lights on all the time once the engine was on. I assume "industry lobbying" put paid to that.

I'm open to correction on this,but as far as I know, Daytime running lights have been mandatory on all new cars since 2012/2013...

magicbastarder

DRLs do not mandate rear running lights though as far as i can see.

LionelNashe

Dravokivich wrote: »

These people are simply unaware of the risk the pose to themselves and other road users.

I'd say it comes down to how risk-averse people are, not how risk-aware. Like those windsurfers off Louth on Monday, or the old guy swimming off Salthill. They know what the risks are, but they choose to accept them for whatever reason.

Alf Veedersane

LionelNashe wrote: »

I'd say it comes down to how risk-averse people are, not how risk-aware. Like those windsurfers off Louth on Monday, or the old guy swimming off Salthill. They know what the risks are, but they choose to accept them for whatever reason.

I'm not convinced that those that know what the risks are and choose to accept them are actually aware of all of the risks or are aware of the extent of the risks they know.

To use a previous example, I wasn't aware how little impact a high vis had on its own until I encountered, as a driver, cyclists cycling with just high vis jackets.

Tombo2001

Any excuse to have a pop at cyclists!!

Here's the thing

(i) in a city with plenty of street lights, anyone driving safely should be able to see a cyclist regardless of what they are wearing

This business of blaming the cyclist excuses the fact that if the motorist is driving safely then he will be well able to see the cyclist....

(ii) studies have shown that wearing hi-viz gear makes no difference to whether motorists will drive dangerously around you.....

(ii) this shock and horror about ' oh the gardai dont even do anything about it'

Traffic laws are routinely broken by motorists every single day in myriads of different ways....

here's a few of my favourites

At any give traffic lights, about 1/3rd of motorists have a smartphone in their hand and are scrolling up and down.

Every time a light goes red, the last motorist through is breaking the red. Always. Without fail.

Pull over on the motorway to take a phone call or have a snooze......not a problem for many Irish motorists.....

Yellow box......the Irish motorist feels more comfortable stopping in it that going through it...

And guess what folks......I dont see a whole lot being done about it.

I could go on and on and on....but when I see motorists then having the cheek to give out about something not being enforced when its not even a legal requirement...!!!! AAghhhhhh

Alf Veedersane

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Any excuse to have a pop at cyclists!!

Here's the thing

(i) in a city with plenty of street lights, anyone driving safely should be able to see a cyclist regardless of what they are wearing

This business of blaming the cyclist excuses the fact that if the motorist is driving safely then he will be well able to see the cyclist....

(ii) studies have shown that wearing hi-viz gear makes no difference to whether motorists will drive dangerously around you.....

(ii) this shock and horror about ' oh the gardai dont even do anything about it'

Traffic laws are routinely broken by motorists every single day in myriads of different ways....

here's a few of my favourites

At any give traffic lights, about 1/3rd of motorists have a smartphone in their hand and are scrolling up and down.

Every time a light goes red, the last motorist through is breaking the red. Always. Without fail.

Pull over on the motorway to take a phone call or have a snooze......not a problem for many Irish motorists.....

Yellow box......the Irish motorist feels more comfortable stopping in it that going through it...

I could go on and on and on....but when I see motorists then having the cheek to give out about something not being enforced when its not even a legal requirement...!!!! AAghhhhhh

I don't think the OP was made in the spirit of 'bloody cyclists'.

And I don't think any study should be a reason for a cyclist not to take proper precautions and wearing high-vis and lights to ensure they're seen. It shouldn't be a case that 'well if drivers drove properly, then cyclists could wear what they like'.

I cycle more than I drive...since it's likely I'll have to qualify the above.

Tombo2001

The other point I would make on this is

Many of the cyclists in Dublin who go around with no hi-viz and no lights are from Europe. They are not Irish.

And the point I would make here is, in Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen etc etc etc cyclists generally don't
use lights or hi viz.

So they are not used to it. Thats just a fact, like it or lump it.

Someone needs to explain to them that they are in Ireland, where the motorist rules, where investment in cycling facilities has been a minuscule part of the transport budget.

Tombo2001

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I don't think the OP was made in the spirit of 'bloody cyclists'.

And I don't think any study should be a reason for a cyclist not to take proper precautions and wearing high-vis and lights to ensure they're seen. It shouldn't be a case that 'well if drivers drove properly, then cyclists could wear what they like'.

I cycle more than I drive...since it's likely I'll have to qualify the above.

And my point is

Where cyclist safety goes - the message for drivers to drive more safely is far more pertinent than the message for cyclists to wear high viz.

But drivers dont want to know. Far easier to blame the cyclists.

Grahamer666

I knew there would be one person to reply with the usual 'any chance to have a go at cyclists' As i already stated, it's to do with the wearing of black clothing and no lights, etc on their bike. And to say most are not Irish is rubbish.

LionelNashe

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Any excuse to have a pop at cyclists!!

Here's the thing

(i) in a city with plenty of street lights, anyone driving safely should be able to see a cyclist regardless of what they are wearing

This business of blaming the cyclist excuses the fact that if the motorist is driving safely then he will be well able to see the cyclist....

.....

I've heard Dublin described as a 'low-light' city. I'd imagine our other cities are even more so.

Regardless, to reduce collisions, you can't just take 1 approach, e.g. 'Cyclists be more visible' OR 'Drivers drive more safely'. Arguing for one approach over the other is missing the reality that you have to have push for both (as much as possible) because you are never going to have the ideal of cyclists being 100% visible or drivers being 100% observant.

Edit: Talk of 'blame' is moralising, which is a distraction, and causes people to get defensive, and then both sides dig their heels in. What's needed is to be practical.

magicbastarder

Grahamer666 wrote: »

I knew there would be one person to reply with the usual 'any chance to have a go at cyclists' As i already stated, it's to do with the wearing of black clothing and no lights, etc on their bike. And to say most are not Irish is rubbish.

to be fair, you have to expect cyclists to be defensive about it because there's no policing of the rules which benefit cyclists any more than there is policing of the rules which target cyclists.

such as the argument - raised seriously recently by the minister for transport - that hi vis could be made mandatory for cyclists. any study done in to the effects of car colour on likelihood of being involved in a collision shows that black cars are measurably more likely to be involved in one. but we don't talk about that, we talk about cyclists.

07Lapierre

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The other point I would make on this is

Many of the cyclists in Dublin who go around with no hi-viz and no lights are from Europe. They are not Irish.

And the point I would make here is, in Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen etc etc etc cyclists generally don't
use lights or hi viz.

So they are not used to it. Thats just a fact, like it or lump it.

Someone needs to explain to them that they are in Ireland, where the motorist rules, where investment in cycling facilities has been a minuscule part of the transport budget.

Any evidence that cyclists in Europe don’t use lights? Or do we just take your word?

A quick search for bikes in Amsterdam shows a lot of lights!

http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/i/aa/bicyle_parking_garage_amsterdam_da.jpg

crosstownk

spyderski wrote: »

I'm open to correction on this,but as far as I know, Daytime running lights have been mandatory on all new cars since 2012/2013...

All new vehicles that have type approval since 2011 need to be fitted with DRLs. So not all vehicles are required to have them fitted at the moment.

If a vehicle was type approved in 2009 and is still being manufactured today then it does not require DRLs to be fitted - the model that replaces it will require DRLs if it is type approved in 2011 or later. Eventually, as older models are replaced we'll see all vehicles fitted with DRLs.

EDIT: As so many newer cars have the instrument panel and display screens constantly illuminated, it isn't obvious to some drivers that the exterior lights are not on from inside the vehicle - not that excuses it. Back in the day it was obvious as the dash was dark if the lights weren't switched on. Auto headlights are thankfully becoming more prevalent.

Alf Veedersane

Tombo2001 wrote: »

And my point is

Where cyclist safety goes - the message for drivers to drive more safely is far more pertinent than the message for cyclists to wear high viz.

But drivers dont want to know. Far easier to blame the cyclists.

The OP wasn't blaming cyclists. Just stated that they weren't exactly taking the necessary precautions to ensure their safety.

By all means drivers should drive more safely and do all they can to ensure they're not involved in an accident. But that doesn't mean a cyclist shouldn't have lights and a high vis jacket.

LeinsterDub

Grahamer666 wrote: »

I knew there would be one person to reply with the usual 'any chance to have a go at cyclists' As i already stated, it's to do with the wearing of black clothing and no lights, etc on their bike. And to say most are not Irish is rubbish.

The only one of these issues that is legitimate is no lights. People are entitled to wear what they like just as people are entitled to drive around in black cars.

LeinsterDub

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The OP wasn't blaming cyclists. Just stated that they weren't exactly taking the necessary precautions to ensure their safety.

By all means drivers should drive more safely and do all they can to ensure they're not involved in an accident. But that doesn't mean a cyclist shouldn't have lights and a high vis jacket.

Should car's have a high vis strip on them?

LionelNashe

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Should car's have a high vis strip on them?

Yes, they should, if we want to reduce collisions. Otherwise, no.

Deep Thought

Cyclist and Driver here...

Do see a lot of Bike Ninjas OK, one lad this morning, had helmet, green jacket, but only turned his front light on when he came to a junction, he did it at the roundabout, onto roundabout light on, overtook him, looked in mirror light off..

Alf Veedersane

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Should car's have a high vis strip on them?

No. Why should anyone bother being visible...if everyone was just better at driving and cycling, there would be no need to take extra precautions.

But as a cyclist, I think cyclists should wear a high vis and have lights on their bike because we don't have a good record when it comes to collisions with cars and the visibility precautions likely reduces the risk of being hit.

It's about being prudent more than it's about being right.

07Lapierre

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

No. Why should anyone bother being visible...if everyone was just better at driving and cycling, there would be no need to take extra precautions.

But as a cyclist, I think cyclists should wear a high vis and have lights on their bike because we don't have a good record when it comes to collisions with cars and the visibility precautions likely reduces the risk of being hit.

It's about being prudent more than it's about being right.

Of the 11 cyclists killed this year, only ONE was during the hours of darkness.
Visibility is important, but Awareness and Observation is far more important.
All the Hi-viz in the world won't help you if the other person is distracted/not paying attention.

LeinsterDub

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

But as a cyclist, I think cyclists should wear a high vis and have lights on their bike because we don't have a good record when it comes to collisions with cars cars colliding with cyclists and the visibility precautions likely reduces the risk of being hit.

It's about being prudent more than it's about being right.

FYP . This phasing annoys me

denismc

The thing about daytime running lights that they are designed to improve the visibilty of the car. They are not designed to illuminate the road and so are not sufficient for night driving.
Also in cars with DRLs the rear lights are not illuminated but not every driver is aware of this, I have seen several cars driving at night with lights in front but none in the rear.

RobbieTheRobber

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The OP wasn't blaming cyclists. Just stated that they weren't exactly taking the necessary precautions to ensure their safety.

By all means drivers should drive more safely and do all they can to ensure they're not involved in an accident. But that doesn't mean a cyclist shouldn't have lights and a high vis jacket.

They should have suitable lights, lets just leave the hi viz vests for builders eh.

Macha

It's not about blame, it's about the gardaí and government putting their limited resources in the right place.

We have laws and fines and policing and many public information campaigns towards cyclists about lighting, about wearing helmets etc. Meanwhile, we have very few public information campaigns towards motorists to watch out for vulnerable road users.

Do most of the accidents between motorists and vulnerable road users happen at night? What is causing these accidents? Who's more likely to be involved? Are there blackspots?

It's only through this sort of analysis will they figure out how to best tackle the problem. In fact, I think most of the fatal road accidents involving cyclists is when a truck turns left onto them. Making truck drivers and cyclists aware of the problem and working to tackle it is a very good example of using the facts to address the problem.

_Kaiser_

denismc wrote: »

The thing about daytime running lights that they are designed to improve the visibilty of the car. They are not designed to illuminate the road and so are not sufficient for night driving.
Also in cars with DRLs the rear lights are not illuminated but not every driver is aware of this, I have seen several cars driving at night with lights in front but none in the rear.

It's a ridiculous oddity on the part of the manufacturers to have them setup that way. It's not a limitation either.. it's a matter of changing a setting in the car's software and a requirement in Scandinavian countries.

My current car was setup the same way - DRLs only lit at the front, but one of the first things I did was change it so the rears are on as well.. forget night-time.. any heavy rain or fog and a lot of cars become invisible.

The problem though I think is that they do illuminate the dash automatically when it gets dark, so in a urban area, a driver may not immediately notice that the dipped lights are off.

Solution is easy.. reset the default settings so both front and rear DRLs come on, and mandate every new car with auto lights (which mine also has) so it switches between DRL and dipped lighting without driver intervention.. for bonus points, wire the fog lights in there too so that the problem of drivers using just their fog lights or blinding people behind them for no reason also goes away.

_Kaiser_

Macha wrote: »

We have laws and fines and policing and many public information campaigns towards cyclists about lighting, about wearing helmets etc. Meanwhile, we have very few public information campaigns towards motorists to watch out for vulnerable road users..

That's not true.. there's several RSA ads about vulnerable road users.. eg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB9d-c-M7D0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB7z9jfdLHc

Macha

OK it could just be my impression. They are good videos too.

07Lapierre

Macha wrote: »

OK it could just be my impression. They are good videos too.

Except for the Cyclists wearing Hi-viz!